In principle it may be reasonable to require employers to provide paid leave and flexible hours to assist someone who has been subjected to domestic violence, especially if they are in the process of changing residence or taking other steps to deal with it. However, this Bill is a dangerous ideological onslaught and contains no safeguards against misuse.

Making employers pay for more leave seems a strange way of ‘signalling’ that domestic violence is unacceptable. In fact, it will make it more acceptable for people to claim they have been subjected to domestic violence because this will entitle them to leave and other privileges which could come in handy for a variety of reasons.
The Explanatory Note also states:

“This Bill will create a system to support businesses to respond effectively”

Well actually no, there’s nothing in the Bill to support businesses at all; it simply places pressure on employers to provide extra paid leave and work flexibility to some employees.

The Explanatory note highlights the confused and somewhat dishonest basis of the Bill.

2. Why would such a Bill apply only to domestic violence? What about if one’s neighbours or the teenage gang down the road were violent and driving you out of your home? Surely people traumatized by violence of any kind that required them to make significant life changes could be helped by leave and flexibility in their employment?

3. The Bill defines domestic violence according to the Domestic Violence Act, i.e. a huge range of normal behaviour that is not necessarily violence at all but someone wants it seen that way. This includes psychological abuse such as raising one’s voice in an argument or letting children hear the raised voice, and economic abuse including limiting a partner’s access to financial resources, e.g. not agreeing to a partner’s every wish to spend money.

4. The Bill imports the same kind of inadequate attitude to evidence and proof as is used in the Family Court. An employee claiming domestic violence need only produce one of a large range of possible documents that suggests the possibility of domestic violence, such as
– A document confirming police attendance at an incident involving domestic violence. This means any police call out which may or may not have involved any violence or may have involved only a drunken false allegation but the police issued the man with a ‘Safety Order’ to ensure police were not going to be bothered again that night.
– A record of a court’s ‘finding of fact’ of domestic violence. This will include the Family Court which finds such ‘fact’ on nothing but an allegation under its ‘balance of probabilities’ rort;
– A court order relating to domestic violence – so every person (read woman) who is granted a temporary protection order on false allegations for ulterior motives will now also get some extra paid leave;
– A report from a medical practitioner stating that a person has injuries or a condition consistent with having suffered domestic violence. So all someone needs to do is to tell the GP they are having some sleeping difficulties and claim this is because their partner said something unpleasant to them, and suddenly they’re a victim of domestic violence and can get some extra paid time off.
– A report from a domestic violence support organisation relating to a person who has suffered domestic violence. But those organisations simply accept any claims from women and do absolutely nothing to substantiate those claims, and indeed Women’s Refuge has admitted (in a Radio NZ interview) that they encourage women to falsely allege violence in order to get fast-tracked and free services from the Family Court.
– Any other document prescribed in regulations made under this Act. The mind boggles.

This Bill if passed will see people, mainly women who can much more easily get the documents required, applying for this extra leave whenever they are moving flats (just blame this on the previous flat mate’s psychological violence, even if there never was a flat mate), whenever they leave a relationship to start a new one (just blame the previous partner’s emotional abuse), or whenever they have run out of other leave.

The Bill could easily have included some real safeguards against misuse but like all our domestic violence laws it leaves the door wide open to misuse based on the fallacious claim that women would never lie about such things. The Bill could have required more solid evidence such as formal charges. And/or it could have required some evidence to be provided of the steps the person took to address the claimed violence. Under the current Bill, a person simply has to allege violence and obtain one of the documents; there is no need to do anything to deal with the violence. A canny employee could just claim each year that her spouse was psychologically mean to her in an argument, use the leave for a nice little holiday, and if the employer then ever asked what transpired she can just say she went back to him and they sorted it out. However, there is no right in the Bill for employers to be told anything about how the leave was used or what the person did about the alleged violence.

This Bill may assist some people who genuinely need help after violent experiences, but the way it’s designed it virtually yells out “Come and misuse me for some paid leave and flexible work hours!” As such it is another attempt to provide women with more opportunities to get privileges and special treatment at their fancy and without accountability. One dangerous aspect is the incentive it provides for even more women to make false allegations, resulting in such consequences as even more children being harmed by the loss of their family, unnecessary acrimony between their separated parents and/or unnecessary Family Court disputes. Even more dangerous, this Bill if passed will be used to publicize more spurious statistics about how many women were victims of domestic violence when many of them actually were not, and thereby maintain the advance of the feminist machine.

12 Responses to “Logie’s Bill Will Increase False Allegations”

More of the same. So frustrating. None so blind as those who choose not to see. As a solo parent custodial of two youngsters, I received no aid to move after someone put it about I was a sex offender, and in consequence some mangina confronted us with a rifle. Terrified me and the kids. I could not afford to move, and needed time to find new affordable accomodation. Of course the kids were put out of harms way immediately that night. Police offered us no safety at the, in fact could not have done more to approve of the mangina’s actions. Later the mangina was shown to have a long prison record for violence and fire-arms offences – but he’s okay with police it seems. The delay in my finding new accomodation convinced WINZ that my move was not an emergency. Adding to that police declined to support my application with a police report of the incident. In the end a local rubbish collecter took mercy for us, hosed out the tray of his truck and transported our property unceremoneously blowing in the wind on the back of it. If I had been a female parent and I took this true story to the paper – imagine the uproar.

Take it to the newspaper and show your kids you got spine!
When I was accused of incest I took it head on and when it came to custody issues they redacted it and blanked it out in court!

I just love how everyone BITCHES and then rolls over? WTF
Why did you not make a public complaint to newspapers? Then if they did nothing then go IPCA and lodge a complaint. Then do a you tube clip.

When my son was assaulted by his step dad I got nothing from the police because the grand mother WORKED for the poo lice. They did nothing. So I emailed John Key and CC in all those lying bitches. They didn’t like it but the outcome was, he got a visit from the police and a formal warning of “Child Assault” That is how you do it my friend and I got a letter stating just that from the Police now watch this video its 5 Minutes and if you peeps every want help with putting one together then go visit guerilla news in NZ. Copy and paste to watch.

My story is quite historic now – and its wrong to assume I did not meet it head on. Had I not, I would not have beaten allegations and got custody. But my comment is my opinion that things are not getting better – instead getting worse. I feel deeply for those going through the grinder today, and deeper still for those yet to encounter it. In relation to the media, we cannot expect to have fair, let alone equal treatment. We cannot expect we will be printed, even our letters. Although I’m not profane, my letters stopped being printed more than a decade ago. The media serves others – not men, not fathers and not children.

Hi Brent – first up – I’m an old relic. Unlike most here, I have nothing on the line. I’m here in case someone can benefit from my experiences.
You sound like you have a lot of energy and must have a vision.
So what are the specific practical answers for the guys here?
I don’t think it fair to suggest that the Dads here are doing less than their energy and obligation limits permit them to.
Like yourself – their children will rightly be their top loyalty and obligation. They all come under continuing attack and this takes a huge toll physically, emotionally and often put their employment in jeopardy – stress often exceeds crisis level. Each one is being played by the system. Also I suspect that males find it more difficult to get together and organise. Most work and so have hours, family obligations, legal appointments, access, and also I suspect that us males still are a tad competitive with eachother. It was easier for women to organise, because when it all began, they had free-time while the father worked and provided. Males don’t have that luxury.

Well put Jerry.
I had to fend of 2 attempts using the legal system to stop me seeing my child.
Including a protection order.
Without a lawyer I managed to stop that happening.
Didn’t have complete success as access was limited but distance was a factor to that.
End result once the child support stopped the child came to live with me.
But that’s no victory.
I have protested outside parliament.

If men wanted to have a men’s march.
Would there be endless free TV advertising in advance like their is for women.
Hell no, just media silence.

One method of protest is to pick something blatantly sexually bigoted and embarrass those who allow it.
An example would be the budget vote for the ministry for women.
Have a group of protesters in the gallery in parliament.
When the budget vote comes up.
And nobody objects.
All get up and chant.
” NZ politicians are bigots”
Or
“Bigotry is not ok”

This is an excellent piece. All those clearly explained reasons for abuse show that it is beyond doubt that changes from this Bill will (not may) be abused. I especially like the parallel with other “traumatic” events, such as the antics of “the teenage gang down the road”. I see a parallel with ACC here. The system was set up to pay for accidents, but somehow effects of sexual abuse got included (I wonder how!). Now if anyone tries to remove it, they will get called misogynists or rape enablers. But if one possible cause of emotional trauma is included, why not others? It is just a pretext for dodgy counsellors to encourage deluded “victims” to rip off the system.

Pedro1 @8: When ACC was first established the inclusion ‘sensitive claims’ for alleged injury from alleged sexual abuse was described as a feminist coup. A whole system that even occupies separate buildings from ACC had to be set up for sensitive claims. So we have long paid huge extra ACC tax on our vehicles and jobs in order to provide expensive professional services and lump-sum compensation to those alleging sexual abuse without any need for proof or good evidence. However, if you were damaged due to any abuse or trauma other than sexual, then to get help you will either have to pay for your own therapy or enter the mental ‘health’ machine with a diagnosis of mental illness.

But there is more total disability in adults and damage to parenting skills, in the huge group of people who don’t quite meet the threshold for a formal diagnosis………

These people are served even more poorly than the people with a formal diagnosis.

But even that is ignoring the impacts on their children’s lives……..

The cheapest “fix” for children, would be to protect their rights of access to both parents!
I have seen that suggested in legislation, so long ago (2004) that I have forgotten where!

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.